ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
Comparative dosimetric analysis of deep inspiration breath-hold versus free breathing radiotherapy in lung cancer: special emphasis on cardiac and subcardiac structure protection.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiation therapy (RT) plays a central role in the treatment of lung cancer. However, cardiac and pulmonary toxicities remain major concerns. Deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) has been shown to improve target stability and reduce organ-at-risk (OAR) exposure, but data in lung cancer, particularly regarding cardiac substructures, remain limited. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analysed 32 patients with lung cancer treated with RT at our institution between 2020 and 2021. Each patient underwent planning CTs in both DIBH and free breathing (FB), generating a total of 64 treatment plans using VMAT (60 Gy in 30 fractions). Contouring followed ESTRO ACROP guidelines, including detailed segmentation of cardiac chambers and coronary arteries. Dosimetric endpoints included Dmean, D2%, and VxGy for lung, heart, and subcardiac structures. Statistical comparisons between DIBH and FB plans were performed. Results: DIBH significantly increased lung volume and improved all lung dosimetric parameters, including Dmean (13.13 vs. 14.49 Gy, p < 0.001) and V20Gy (24.37 % vs. 27.28 %, p < 0.001). Cardiac sparing was evident, with lower heart D2% (39.91 vs. 41.67 Gy, p = 0.012) and V45Gy (2.23 % vs. 2.53 %, p = 0.005). Notably, significant reductions were observed in the LAD (Dmean: 5.59 vs. 6.57 Gy, p = 0.004), LCX, and LV. Subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent dosimetric advantages across tumor laterality and level 7 nodal involvement. Conclusions: DIBH offers substantial and consistent dosimetric benefits in lung cancer RT, reducing radiation burden to pulmonary, cardiac, and coronary structures. Given the known association between cardiac dose and long-term morbidity, these findings support the broader implementation of DIBH, especially in anatomically challenging cases involving subcarinal nodes or left-sided tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.